I think the problem here is how the law as written is geared only towards push media (broadcasting) versus pull media (subscription). With one, part of a scarce resource (bandwidth) is being occupied, leaving it the responsibility of the owner of that bandwidth to provide balance. In a subscription model, there is no scarcity in that sense, as the audience has to actively choose the media. That makes it less a question of providing an equal platform because the platform is so darn huge in all directions.
Also, an argument could be made that even if this were a channel, it would still be an allowed exception as per the last salvational clause in that paragraph. (“Die Möglichkeit, Spartenprogramme anzubieten, bleibt hiervon unberührt.”).
As for the proper term for what AKK is, I want to say Ewiggestrige, but that is a term I reserve more for those assholes who try to claim that Hitler did good things as well. I am sure the kids from the Fridays for Future demos can come up with a good German term.
the bill of rights had twelve amendments but they weren’t ratified by all states.
( edit: it’s worth pointing out because there are some who believe that the ten amendments some how mirror the ten commandments. calling them collectively the bill of rights is more common and avoids the connection some people try to generate. )
the first, not the second.
the constitution doesn’t reference god or a deity at all. and the declaration of independence ( earlier, granted ) says specifically that governmental rights and responsibilities flow from those it governs; and not, for instance, from on high.
some of the founders believed in a god, some didn’t. few if any saw a divine hand in law.
I’m going to point to the green new deal, carried by green candidates for years, and I’m going to tell Kathy that blaming Nader for Bush is a canard that has been debunked by dozens of studies but go ahead, vote democrat and trash the greens. Great strategy…
For better or worse, usually for worse, we’re stuck with a duopoly system in the U.S. Work to get the Greens to replace the Dems (or, better yet, the GOP) as one of those two parties and then you can say “I told you so”.
If I were a Green my primary concern right now would be pushing for some form of ranked preference voting, not whinging about how terrible it is that the sheeple don’t recognise the party’s greatness.
That’s easier in a parliamentary system. As noted earlier, the current American system adds in extra barriers for third parties and independent candidates in federal elections.
As noted above, switching the system from FPTP to some form of ranked preference voting would be the most effective first step to breaking the duopoly. For presidential elections, reforming or abolishing the Electoral College would also help.
True. Ultimately the Greens would have to offer a comprehensive platform and/or charismatic candidates that have wide appeal. But currently, under the FPTP system, even with both they’d still have a problem breaking into the duopoly.
Historically, an existing duopoly party has to fail spectacularly to address the issues of the day to be supplanted by another. In those rare cases, it’s also very likely that the new party will be formed by a critical mass of splitters from the failing duopoly party (as opposed to an existing third party taking over the spot).
That’s what most Americans who recognise the existence of the duopoly system end up doing. It also informs the decisions of candidates, which is why Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez run as Dems even though they’re socialists.
Proportional representation allows small parties to get into parliaments at all. The Greens in Germany cleared the 5% barrier in the late 70s/early 80s and now won 2nd place in the EU election (first place among young voters). Without parliamentary work, how should a party build its reputation?
As it turns out I completely misread gracchus’s post and missed the bit where he advocated trying to get proportional representation, etc. I agree with that bit.
I don’t agree with telling someone who supported the Greens not to vote for them because it’d be a wasted vote.
Getting proportional representation is also useful (and possibly vital) but it is not a substitute for voting for the party you support when you have the opportunity.
Voting for a party you don’t support instead of one you do just entrenches that party’s dominance.
Big parties will never get less popular if everyone keeps voting for them whether they actually agree with their policies or not.
